Thursday, April 30, 2015

Wind
energy plays an important role in addressing climate change on a global level.
Many countries around the world have been working hard to reduce their carbon
emissions during the last decades. Some of the world's leading markets in the
US, Denmark, Australia and the UK recognized the power of clean energy and
electricity to reduce carbon pollution.

By
increasing the proportion of electricity generated from wind energy we can
lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Wind
farms do not emit greenhouse gases when they generate electricity, in contrast
to coal and gas stations. An additional negative side in relation to both coal
and gas as sources of energy is the amount of wasted heat that cannot be easily
transformed into electricity. Almost half of the energy used to produce
electricity from gas and coal is lost during the production process, which is
not the case with wind energy.

Wind Energy In
Numbers

2015
brought good news for the wind sector and it seems like we will hear much more
about this industry. Wind energy assured its place in the future as the
inexpensive way of harvesting electrical power. As the emphasis on protecting
the environment is growing, wind power is looking better as an option for a
sustainable future.

2014
was an exceptional year for wind energy, but 2015 is bringing surprises in
terms of leading markets. Data obtained by GreenMatch and the Global Wind Energy Council indicate
that China will continue to lead the global market with a share of 40-45%.
Additionally, new markets, particularly in Latin America and Africa, will
emerge and Europe will continue its steady march towards its 2020 targets.

In
terms of numbers and installed capacity, North America is always the hardest to
predict. However, existing incentive arrangements and numerous projects planned
for 2015 and 2016 in North America are good indicators that the upcoming period
will most likely be good for the wind industry in this region. Although 80% of
the existing wind power installations are situated in Republican congressional
district, it remains the case that energy issues are ideologically positioned
in Washington.

When
it comes to the Pacific region, Australia is the only contributor to the
region’s wind energy production. Even though numbers are not reaching their
highest potential, Australia’s tremendous wind capacities indicate that this
market will get stronger.

In
the first quarter of 2015 following six countries had more than 10,000 MW of
installed capacity including China with 114,609 MW, the US with 65,879 MW,
Germany with 39,165 MW, Spain with 22,987 MW, India with 22,465 MW and the UK
with 12,440 MW. Looking ahead, the picture is complex across various regions
and the rest of 2015 is likely to be good period for wind energy.

Eyes on the
Future

Considering
all the benefits of wind energy, it is not surprising that it is a fast growing
industry. Although initial costs of installation are high, scientists are
constantly seeking for ways of reducing prices and developing new solutions.
One of them is the usage of existing offshore oil platforms that are nearing
the end of their useful life as an installation field.

Latest studies are showing high potential of new types of wind
turbines, capable of harnessing stronger and more consistent winds, higher in
the atmosphere. Even though these new models are in the testing phase, there
are high potential and positive results associated with their development.

Initial
costs of installations will most likely fall to compete with the affordable
traditional energy sources, as gas, even in low-wind regions. According to the
US Department of Energy, future plans are focused on reducing the prices of
land-based wind energy down by 18% and the cost of offshore wind energy by 63%
until 2020.

While
electricity from onshore wind farms is already cheaper than conventional power
in an increasing number of markets, relatively high costs remains the biggest
challenge for offshore wind development. In today’s rapidly shifting
environmental and energy policy landscape, an important goal of the wind
industry is to be pricing competitive with fossil fuels and affordable for not
only commercial but domestic markets.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Pope Francis will be issuing a papal encyclical later this year in which he will be telling the Church and its followers climate change is real. He will also say the Church and its followers must act on climate change on the moral and scientific grounds. The encyclical will be delivered to all of the bishops and priests with instructions they are to deliver it to their congregations.

The big question here is, why does
Heartland care? They have simply ignored the science before, why not
just ignore the religion, as well? Just do the math for the answer.

The number of people that will be reached by this encyclical is huge. By some estimates, the Catholic church numbers about 1.1 billion followers with another 240 million Eastern Orthodox followers. About 80 million of those followers are in the U.S. (including 30 percent of Congress, more than any other religion). An encyclical is a letter from the pope to the bishops addressing some issue of Catholic doctrine. So, when the pope tells the followers of the Church they must acknowledge the reality of climate change and act on it, they will become sinners in the eyes of the Church if they fail to do so.

The ability to make such a definitive statement to such a large portion of the population is real power. Now, the deniers are taking note and it looks like they're scared. Heartland has no scientific credibility whatsoever. Now, they'll shortly have no religious credibility, either. And, that is one of the things they have depended on with many deniers claiming climate change is not real because we are not big enough to defy God and change the world He created.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Based on their actions, Heartland doesn't think it will play out in their favor.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

In an open letter, published in Financial Times, 43 international CEO's from major corporations called upon world leaders to act on climate change. This is very good news. If we can get people other than scientists to urge action, especially powerful, influential people, then we might be able to get something done.

This letter was in the lead-up to the meeting that will be taking place in Paris this December to work on a climate change treaty. Let's hope enough pressure will be put on the world leaders they will find a way to get something meaningful done.

However, I believe we need to brace ourselves. The global warming deniers managed to spring some dirty tricks right before the last two conferences in an attempt to sabotage them. It is not unreasonable to expect them to do it again.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

I have been working on formatting the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge for publication as a book and I am (very!) pleased to say I am done and it is now available. You can download it as a free PDF from my author webpage (chriskeatingauthor.com). If you feel like you need to pay for it, it is available on Amazon. It was too large to put into one print version book, so the hard copy version comes in two volumes. The ebook version does not please me, but that is the problem with taking a printed page and converting it into digital format. Hopefully, no one will be buying either of them.

The book is large - over 730 pages. That includes the 86 submissions, end notes, bibliography and index. There are also a number of chapters at the beginning where I share some of my observations and experiences from the challenge.

I hope you find it a useful reference and I would enjoy hearing any comments you have to make (even negative ones).

Monday, April 20, 2015

A California appeals court has ruled a tiered-water rate in San Juan Capistrano, CA is unconstitutional. Like many communities, San Juan charged an increasing rate for users who used greater amounts of water. The residents passed a law saying the government can not charge more for a service than the cost of that service. Using that law as a basis, the residents claimed the tiered-rate system was arbitrary and unfair. The courts agreed.

Does this mean the end of tiered-rate practices in California? That would be a very bad thing. The idea behind a tiered-rate is to have affordable water for low-income families but to discourage the waste of water. As we all know, California cannot afford to waste water anymore. And, yet, that is exactly what some people are doing. Despite the drought, people are failing to conserve water. In other words, they are wasting water the community can't afford to waste simply because they can.

If this ruling sticks and spreads throughout the state, it will have a serious impact on an already serious situation.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surface
temperatures combined for March 2015 was 0.85°C (1.53°F) higher than the
20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This marks the
highest March temperature in the 136-year period of record, surpassing
the previous record of 2010 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). The Northern Hemisphere
had its second highest March temperature on record, behind only 2008,
while the Southern hemisphere tied with 2002 for third highest.

Monday, April 13, 2015

I have taken the time to review your ten page paper, and
what I can do is discuss some of the curious portions that to me, don't seem to
provide meaningful time frames, or solid statistical references.

To begin with, I don't understand your implication that
taking temperature readings from one place on Earth instead of from all around
the globe is unimportant—such as in the case of the single place readings from
the Milan station in Chippewa county that you discuss? It is obviously better
to determine long term trends by using the data from numerous stations as well
as including homogenized data which takes into regard various non-climate
influences, as well as the massive temperature data from satellite readings,
which the vast majority of climate scientists have consistently done.

Many of the “facts and figures,” you rely on, seem at best
quite questionable. To begin with you state that data from the last 100 years,
taken from the Opjorden farm reveal a rise of 1.8 degrees F and also that this
rise confirms the results from “various climatic authorities,”and reveals a
“clear upward rise over a period of 115 years.” But then you refer to Dr. J
Easterbrook who, presented many peer papers at the American Geophysical union
meeting in 2008, and whose research has allegedly revealed many warming and
cooling trends which have occurred during portions of those last 115 years.
However, in conclusion you say that the last period from 1998-2008 is an
indication that the past century may “not have been as as catastrophic as
predicted by some." And you then claim that a small downward trend ending
after those ten years, supports that “strong probability.” So you have taken an
upward trend of over 115 years and strongly implied that a recent period of
only 10 years may very well, negate it all! How does suggesting that we might
soon enter another cooling trend add proof to the contention that global
warming as recorded and evaluated by 97% of peer-reviewed and published
scientists, is not nearly as dire as they suggest, or may not be happening at
all? Ten years of data compared to 115 years of the same, cannot seriously
dismiss the overall rise of globally recorded temperatures world wide, nor can it
prove that such a rise has little to do with human activities. So why even
dwell on such a claim?

I might also note that the 5 differing time periods you use
to affirm frequent warming and cooling cycles are very different in length, and
can be viewed much differently just by cherry picking data in a different way,
i.e. if one includes the first two periods of time as part of one single
period—from 1894 to 1945, (a period of 51 years)—one can see that although the
ending temperature in 1915 is at, or a little under, 43, at the end of 1945,
the final temperature level is listed as at, or a little above, 43. So, if I
were to describe a cooling trend by referring to that longer period of time,
the evidence would not support the same conclusion—only that temperatures ended
a little higher than 43, or at the least, were at the same level as
temperatures at the end of 1915. And, if one decides to chop the periods you
list, into smaller segments, many more warming and cooling trends can be
described within the overall time frame of the periods you (and Dr.
Easterbrook) list? I am not saying that all warming and cooling trends must
happen over the same amount of time, but your periods range from a high of 32
years, to a low of only ten years between 1998-2009, (depending on which times
of year in 1998 and 2009 the measurements are taken from). So the fact that so
many different lengths of time are involved just makes me doubt the feasibility
of your claims. As you say, the results cannot be proven until after they happen,
so why even entertain such a vague theory as if it was extremely significant? I
also noticed that the integers you list along the vertical axis of your charts,
do not include specific labeling to designate them as either Fahrenheit or
Celsius temperatures, and they cover a range of from 36 to 55. But what
specific values do those numbers refer to? It seems a bit shoddy of you not to
make this clear.

“It's
worth noting that Peter Thorne of NCDCwas interviewed by Andrew Revkin, and discussed three
papers which NCDC has recently published (see here,
here,
here). In the first of those linked papers, they actually
conclude that there likely remains a residual cool bias in the adjusted data,
and that the adjusted data are consistent with reanalysis data (detailed in the
third linked paper). Watts et al. do not address these papers. Ironically Watts responded to that interview by saying that Thorne
needs to get out into the real world, but it is Watts et al. who have not
accounted for real world effects like TOB, station movement, instrument
changes, etc.

In its current form, the Watts
paper contains little in the way of useful analysis. There are too many
potential sources of bias which are not accounted for, too many
apples-to-oranges comparisons, and they cannot draw any conclusions about urban
heat influences until their data are homogenized and other non-climate influences
are removed.

The
primary conclusion of the paper, aside from not being supported by the
analysis, is simply implausible. The CONUS surface warming trend proposed by
the Watts paper appears to be inconsistent
with the satellite observations, and overall global trends in raw data do not
differ dramatically from those in the adjusted data. Comparing raw to adjusted
data globally shows a rather small difference in long-term trends; far smaller
than a factor of two.

The flaws we have identified entirely compromise the
conclusions of the paper. Ultimately Watts et al. assume that all adjustments
are 'spurious' unless due to urban heat influences, when in fact most of their
identified discrepancy likely boil down to important adjustments for
instrumental changes, TOB, and other influences they have not accounted for in
their analysis. Watts et al. attempt to justify their assumption by asserting
"well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted
poor stations," but this is simply not how the homogenization process is
done.

In conclusion, Watts et al. of course deserve the right to
try to make their case in the peer-reviewed literature, however implausible
that case appears to be. Therefore, we hope they will consider addressing the
important concerns detailed above before they submit the paper to a journal.
Otherwise we suspect the paper will not fare well in the peer review process.
With said caveats carefully addressed and the conclusions amended if and where
necessary, the paper has the potential to be a useful contribution to the climate
science literature.”

Here you will find 176 common climate myth examined by
climate scientists. Two which I suggest you read, are nos. 47 and 118, since
both the Little Ice Age in England
and the Oregon Institute Petition project are both cited in your paper.

In the case of the little ice age, (no 47) , a number of
natural variations likely contributed to abnormal cooling, such as increased
volcanic activity, and diminished solar output, both of which can cause
cooling.

Likewise, myth 118 examines the dubious methodology that the
Oregon Petition project utilized, and the actual relevance of the over 31,000
signatures it contains. You should examine this myth for yourself, but just to
put it in perspective, one very significant critique of the Oregon petition is
that 32,000 signatures sounds impressive, but only represents 0.3% of the ten
million science graduates who posses qualifications that satisfy the terms of
the petition. Here is paste with more about myth 47.

“Can We Draw a Conclusion?

In truth, not
really. The Little Ice Age remains for the present the subject of speculation.
The most likely influence during this period is variable output from the sun
combined with pronounced volcanic activity. We know that from the end of the LIA
to the 1950s the sun’s output increased. But since WW2 the sun has slowly grown
quieter, yet the temperature on Earth has gone up.”

So interestingly although from the end of the LIA the sun's
output increased until 1950, but has grown quieter in post WW2 years, one would
expect to find that after WW2 temperatures decreased accordingly, but that is
just not the case.” And, Mr. Seppa, Are you really not aware that climate
scientists have consistently utilized various methods to account for common
discrepancies that may result from taking readings from different weather
station locations in order to arrive at reliable data? These already include
station moves, instrument changes, time of observation, urban island heat
biases, and various other inhomogeneities over the last 150 years. Despite your
apparent opinion that the tens of thousands of scientists who are now
accumulating data, are some kind of incompetent and negligent group that would
return to the drawing board if Anthony Watts experiments were replicated, but
that is far from the truth. Virtually all the factors which might conceivably
produce biased results from ground weather stations, have long ago been
considered by climate scientists--who affirm the existence of our present,
predominately human caused global warming. However, in many cases additional
knowledge from new research, has actually revealed bias on the warmer side. Yet
if Mr. watt’s research was actually replicated by a significant number of his
peers, you can bet that nearly all knowledgeable climate change researchers,
would willingly take notice and adjust their projections in order to make them
more accurate. For climate change researchers, Its not merely about being
right--it's about accurately evaluating their findings and then drawing logical
conclusions from them! Here is a link to a web page on the skeptical science
site that explains the issues involved with interpreting weather data:

Overall your paper is full of important omissions as well as
failures to adequately identify the data you site. One example is your mention
of the claim that Watt's observations have shown that the new latex paint on
shelters caused an increase of .3 degrees F for minimum temperatures, and an .8
F increase for maximum temperatures, but inexplicably you fail to mention what
those maximum and minimum temperatures are, or what temperatures they are
increases or decreases from? Admittedly the increases and decreases themselves
would seem to be the most important, but it's a bit negligent to leave out the
actual temperatures themselves, since they might be of obvious importance to
those wanting to know all of the specifics. And although you report that Watt's
experiments in regards to this supposedly unique study, involved three weather
stations, do you expect us to believe that such a small sampling of stations
can produce relevant results concerning warning around the globe? Also, after
affirming that Watt's experiments involved three different weather reading
stations, you make no mention of just where each of them are located. As a
person who lives in Superior,
WI. I can testify to the fact
that frequently, those of us near the lake shore, experience temperatures more
than 20 degrees colder than do those living only a few miles inland. So
obviously even minor location differences can cause major differences in
temperature readings.

Your insistence that climate scientists appear unwilling to
to attempt replication of experiments that “refute their basic contentions,”
and your implication that “political” motives are driving this supposed
refusal, are matters of grave concern. That's because they unfairly imply that
scientists are deliberately trying to deceive the public for some unknown end.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!

Firstly I would like to ask you what you specifically mean
by this allegation, and to provide some of the hows and whys that could
motivate learned scientists to seek participation in some sort of massive
conspiracy? Rather than just continuing to make this allegation, could you
please specifically describe what the goals of this supposed plot are, and how
these are going to be accomplished? Many of us would like to know more than
just vague allegations involving financial gain, partisan attempts to control
the future energy markets of the world, or supposed obedience to pressures from
a government that is determined to force their compliance. Tell us instead the
whys, whats, and wheres, if you want to remain credible. And if you want to
claim that the perfectly feasible assumption that energy companies with very
apparent motivations for wanting to avoid jeopardizing the vast wealth they
hold in today’s markets, cannot also be credibly implicated as participants in
a well contrived conspiracy aimed at discrediting the work of climate
scientists, please tell us why?

The projections made by climate scientists concerning
today's weather extremes were first advanced in the 1970s and 1980s, and except
for some temporary controversy about whether the climate would warm or cool
(partly because aerosols were then part of the equation), most past climate
scientists projected today’s volatile and extreme weather conditions more than
30 years ago! So if they knew they were advancing a hoax, how then did many of
them luck out, and actually live to see their projections validated? Did they
use a time machine to visit the post 2000 climate and then go back to 1980 in
order to make predictions with use of such extraordinary knowledge? And if the
government indeed, has a stake in forcing scientists to provide information beneficial
to it, then are these puppet masters conservative Republicans, liberal
democrats, or something else in between? And, why have scientists who affirm
man's role in today's weather extremes never changed their message, even though
several Democrat and Republican governments have since occupied the White House?
If those who were under Clinton's
thumb never changed their opinions despite the ensuing Presidency of George W.
Bush, how could either party be eagerly compliant with the contentions of such
a vast conspiracy? Again, give us specifics about how climate researchers
intend to benefit by gaining control the future economy. As well as why none of
them came forward after Bush's rejection of the Kyoto agreement to expose the liberal
coercion that Democrats supposedly forced upon them? And, why do Republicans
not also fit the role of conspirators, since many of them align with the
desires of big oil, big coal, and big energy companies?

Unlike many climate change deniers, or (contrarians), if you
prefer, who have direct connections to think-tanks (funded at least in part),
by big oil and big coal special interests, learned scientists who originally
made correct predictions thirty or more years ago, aren't likely to live to
enjoy the fruits of their supposed treachery, yet deniers who keep insisting on
the advancing a reality that promises to usher in even more global temperature
increases, along with risking human vulnerability to those extreme weather
conditions—like tornadoes, hurricane, droughts, floods, blizzards and so many
of the other extremes we are now seeing—presently prosper from their
associations with wealthy politically influential sources!

The truth is that climate science has always affirmed that
climate change is as old as the earth, and that, specific weather events
neither prove nor disprove global warming. They have also long realized that
large temperature increases have occurred in previous geological eras, and have
always admitted that they do not know all the answers. But, when climate
science is described as settled science, this concept primarily refers to the
basic fact that global warming is happening, and that we human beings are its
major cause. When almost 100 percent of reputable scientists agree on this
fact, then that is when one can consider the pertinent issues about this
reality to be over and done with. Of course many other unknowns exist, but that
does not exclude the fact that, what we now know, is that if we don't take
steps to mitigate this potentially disastrous threat, we may be blowing a rare
chance to shape Earth's future positively for all of us.

The world has always experienced large climatic changes
including pervasive warming temperatures, but what concerns climate scientists
of today is the unprecedented RATE of warming, which Is presently more rapid
than at any other time in Earth's history. The reason people like me, insist on
getting this message across, is that, we are concerned about the future of our
children and those of all successive generations. We don't do this for money or
political power, but rather to ensure basic survival for all of our fellow
human beings. And Mr. Seppa, if you bother to really check out the answers to
your unsubstantiated claims, you will understand that not taking positive steps
towards preserving the future, is the most devastating failure we will ever
face!

Peter W. Johnson

Mr. Seppa’s original letter follows. The original was a pdf file and much of the format has been lost. I will continue to work on it in an attempt to reproduce it more faithfully: